his title. and we have winner right? wrong. the senator pulled ahead for the last time himes issued a bitter response. gentlemen i say we put our differences aside and focus on what is important here. the fact that if you pool your twitter followers tonight, you would have 23/10000th of follower as this tv show. i'm done talking now. >> jennifer: thank you brett. good to see the leaders attacking the important issues like twitter @jengranholm follow me. somebody is always in our war room you can check out our exclusive web extras.

thank you so much for joining us here in a great night. >> obama: let's do the right thing for them and this country that we love so much. thank you. let's sign these orders.

>> all right very emotional appeal. we'll talk about that in a minute. plus yours truly in an ad for the nra of all things. brilliant idea that these lunatics had let's put more guns in school. wow, you got me on that. >> the media speaks for elites. america speaks for itself. >> cenk: i speak for the elites? i don't think they watch the show. they can start watching right now because it's go time. [ ♪ theme music ♪ ] >> obama: we've got an obligation to try. >> the president today signed 23 executive orders. >> obama uses kids as human shields. >> some republicans say the white house effort is misguided. >> we're talking about gun safety and reducing gun violence not begun control.

>> what republicans are upset mostly is stopping the legislation. >> he wants to go big on this. >> thethe national rifle association released a video. >> the national rifle association came out swinging. >> put more guns in school. wow, you got me on that. >> doing whatever it takes to get an a-grade from the gun lobby. >> from the overmajority support of their members. >> adam lanza still would have had access to guns. >> these measures have the support of the american people. it doesn't mean that these will be easy to enact or implement. >> cenk: now in there we had of course the most absurd defenses by the republicans which i'll get to in a second. ana kasparian joins me here. first let's start with president obama's press conference today. let me show you what he said. >> obama: they are common sense

measures. they have the support of the majority of the american people. yet, that doesn't mean that any of this will be easy to enact or implement. if it were we would already have universal background check. the ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines would never have been allowed to expire. it will depend on congressional action. they need to bring it up for a vote, and the american people need to make sure that they do. >> cenk: well, president obama's proposals were strong today including a ban on new assault weapons limits on high capacity magazines, expanded background checks and tougher gun trafficking laws. anna what else did he do? >> those are proposals and they do need to undergo congressional apowers. however he passed 23 executive actions. as he was signing those actions let's take a look at the video he did so with children behind him. this was a great way to do it

because it shows you who the president is trying to protect and just to give a sense of some of the executive actions that he did pass, he wants to increase actions of background checks data launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership program, and nominate a permanent atf director, that's the bureau of alcohol tobacco firearms and explosives. common sense gun control and of course the republicans and some democrats want to fight this tooth and nail. >> cenk: of course, by the way that jerk rush limbaugh came in and said oh, he's trying to use the kids as human shields. oh for christ's sake. bush and reagan never had kids in signing ceremonies when it's about you kids. >> the democrats who may fight against this, it's not as tooth

and nail as some crazies in the republican party. there are some people who are on the fence. then marco rubio said nothing the president is proposing would have--stopping such violence. >> cenk: this is the thing that is driving me craze. none of this would have stopped sandy hook. you know what would have stopped sandy hook? if we had much tougher gun control. oh he's not doing enough so it wouldn't have stopped sandy hook. great, let's do more. >> rubio is saying he's not doing things to attack the underlying problems that there are. he is he's talking about not just gun control but mental health and executives orders of putting todd jones at the head of the atf. >> i have to agree with michael here. you look at the proposals and

it's very comprehensive. he does target a large variety of issues. aside from gun control and i like that. anyone who is reasonable and logical could not look at obama's proposals and say it goes too far. they are common sense. we should have more back round checks and get rid of the gun show loopholes. i don't understand why they would fight against that. >> cenk: because they represent the gun manufacturers and they want to make more money. there is more action from the republicans. >> yes, the representative from north carolina, and in inconsequential member in congress. she said obama is exploiting the tragedy for political gain, and eroding our constitutional rights for the sake of an extreme liberal agenda. >> cenk: when the republicans of course were supposed to do that, of course, reference 9/11 and what they did. >> enough said. that's all you really need to say. then you go to the real right

wing nut job steve stock man, a former member of the house happens to be in ron paul's district in texas. steve stock manman thought obama staged waco. he now says that he'll say obama's executive actions are unconstitutional and will affect the right to keep and bear arms. he goes on to say, i will speak to thwart this action by any means necessary including but not limited to defunding the white house and even filing articles of impeachment. he's going to defund the white house. >> cenk: i'm curious how that's going to happen. and of course immediately before we have the second term, the talk of impeachment comes in.

let's go to omar swhari. his sister was killed at virginia tech. omar, we really appreciate it. >> thank you for having me on. >> cenk: first let me ask you you about president obama's actions today. >> i don't think they go far enough and there is more we can do to have a far reaching approach to gun violence prevention. >> cenk: what about the orders he signed today. are they helpful or just a matter of appearance. >> i think they're pretty helpful, very helpful. after my sister rema was killed at virginia tech we knew we needed to fix the background check and i joined mayors against illegal guns with mayor

bloomberg and 700 mayors around the country. we went to 56 cities in four months and advocated to have the background check database updated with all the names of prohibited purchasers. the man who killed my sister and 31 other victims at virginia tech fell through the cracks. he passed two background checks to buy the guns that he used and he was a prohibited purchaser. the reason why he was able to pass because his name was not in the national database. so we need to update that database. right now we still have millions of names missing around the country because states aren't fully complying with that law. they're not updating their own databases to go to the national database. when you have that, you're going to have gunmen who like at virginia tech, being able to buy guns even though they're prohibited. we need to update all the databases and we need to have

universal background checks. that's something that we need to push for now. a gun check on every gun sold in the country. >> cenk: that's great expertise on the specific details of the proposal. marco rubio said oh, this would not have prevented sandy hook. but are you saying that it could have prevented virginia tech. >> it definitely would have prevented virginia tech. in virginia we have a gold standard now. when someone tries to purchase a gun and they're a prohibited purchaser and failed, the state police and local police are notified. it led to over 850 people who were prohibited purchasers being arrested and a hand full of emwere fugitives on a nationwide bay, and they were caught because of a background check system. we've had 1 point 1.6 million people

stopped because they were on the prohibited list. >> cenk: i want to show a clip of a coupe couple of clips, ed me ese and rand paul. >> i've been opposed to executives orders one that wants to infringe on the second amendment. >> it would not be legal. it would not be constitutional. indeed, if he tried to override the second amendment in any way it would be an impeachable offense. >> i think it's lawfullible. we're not infringing on the second amendment. what we're trying to do to prevent people who are prohibited from purchasing guns from doing so. that's fully within the constitution. i don't think that trying to save lives is ever a bad thing. >> cenk: omar, thanks so much for joining us. we appreciate your expertise on this. >> happy to be here. >> cenk: when we come back we'll

talk about the kidnappings inial algeria. we'll talk to glen greenwald and lindsay moran, a former c.i.a. operative as to why this might have happened. >> it's right on the border with libya, the rise of islamic extremism right across north africa is a major concern for u.s. officials............................ very, very excited about that and very proud of that. >>beltway politics from inside the loop. >>we tackle the big issues here in our nation's capital, around the country and around the globe. >>dc columnist and four time emmy winner bill press opens current's morning news block. >>we'll do our best to carry the flag from 6 to 9 every morning. >>liberal and proud of it. irene, drop the itch. we dropped the itch, you can too.

maximum strength scalpicin® is not a shampoo so you can stop intense itch fast, wherever you are. i dropped the itch. drop the itch with scalpicin®. hershey's simple pleasures chocolate. 30% less fat, 100% delicious. but when joint pain and stiffness from psoriatic arthritis hit

even the smallest things became difficult. i finally understood what serious joint pain is like. i talked to my rheumatologist and he prescribed enbrel. enbrel can help relieve pain, stiffness, and stop joint damage. because enbrel, etanercept suppresses your immune system, it may lower your ability to fight infections. serious, sometimes fatal events including infections tuberculosis lymphoma, other cancers, and nervous system and blood disorders have occurred. before starting enbrel your doctor should test you for tuberculosis and discuss whether you've been to a region where certain fungal infections are common. don't start enbrel if you have an infection like the flu. tell your doctor if you're prone to infections, have cuts or sores have had hepatitis b have been treated for heart failure, or if, while on enbrel, you experience persistent fever, bruising, bleeding, or paleness. [ phil ] get back to the things that matter most. ask your rheumatologist if enbrel is right for you. [ doctor ] enbrel, the number one biologic medicine prescribed by rheumatologists. we have a big big hour and the iq will go way up.

(vo) current tv gets the converstion started weekdays at 9am eastern. >> i'm a slutty bob hope. >> you are. >> the troops love me. (vo) tv and radio talk show host stephanie miller rounds out current's morning news block. >> you're welcome current tv audience for the visual candy. just be grateful current tv does not come in smellivision. the sweatshirt is nice and all but i could use a golden lasso. (vo) only on current tv. der. >> cenk: we're back on "the young turks," cenk uygur and ana kasparian. we have more on the kidnappings in algeria. >> well, dozens of foreign nationals have been kidnapped from a bp oil plant in algeria. this is due to retaliation. mali, a neighboring country islamic militants have taken over the northern region of the country and they were attempting to take over the southern region the country which is for the large part being ruled by the

government. when france found out this was happening, they decided to get involved and they put boots on the ground and tried to stop the islamic militants from doing this. in retaliation the islamic militants went after the bp because they allow france to use their air as far as. >> al quite link militants are holding three american hostages along with other foreigners as a field partly owned by bp in the african nation of algeria. >> we're going to talk about mali in the south in a moment. but look to the east. it is possibly no coincidence that this field is right on the border with libya. the rise of islamic extremism right across north africa is a major concern for u.s. officials. >> now fox is trying to continue

the whole narrative of ex-lambic extremism, how it's spreading look at libya and no coincidence that it's happening on the border of libya and algeria. but the state department did release a statement on this. >> we condemn in strongest terms the take on british petroleum employees. the best information that we have is that u.s. citizens are among the hostages. let me say that the secretary has spoken to our ambassador in algeria, and as i was coming down here, she was on the phone with algerian prime minister. >> cenk: let's talk to a couple of ex-person on this. lindsay moran a former c.i.a. operative, she's in balalmomo ananlele greenwald is a

journalist. you've written about the situation in mali and our intervention there. tell us a little bit more about that, and whether you think that this has led to this kind of blow back. >> i think two things. one, you can't really try to understand what is happening in mali or algeria without understanding the dangers that were clear when we got involved in the intervention with libya. lots of critics of that war warned we didn't know who the rebels were against gadhafi and we didn't know who it was that we were arming. yet it was clear there were extremeist elements against gadhafi and there is in syria and assad. and by arming them we would have to face them and combined with the dangerous and massive instability by removing gadhafi and causing an exodus of his mercenaries across northern and western africa. you see the results of arming al-qaeda otherrer and other

extremists causing problems there and in mali there has been a coup but those driven out of post gadhafi racist libya who are well armed. they're training people in the government who turned and defected and joined the rebels. the final point is that when you bomb yet another country filled with muslims, they have vowed retaliation, and you're seeing the results of the french bombing campaign with the hostage taking in algeria. >> quick question about how the future looks for the united states. how will the future act on the kidnappings? how will the americans act when it comes to the kidnappings? do you see them getting involved to save them? what do you think? >> you know, it's a continuous and self-perpetuateing cycle.

it's a remote part of algeria. al-qaeda is pretty well fortified there. at the same token it's hard to see obama sitting by and doing nothing while al-qaeda or what we're calling al-qaeda hold hostages. the more militarism you engage to what we'll call terrorism, the more it fuels that part of the world and then the more terrorism, the tit for tat not unlike what has called the palestinians and israelis to be at war. we'll be continue to go trigger retaliatory acts like this that in turn cause more militarism and cause more anti-americanism and militarism. >> cenk: lindsay, when you were with the c.i.a. how was this resolved?

obviously it wasn't resolved, but, look, if we don't get involved we have possible bad guys working against our interest. if we do get involved, we oftentimes have blow back. how do you resolve that. >> the thing about being at the c.i.a. you're not making political. as an ops officer you're claiming information recruiting human sources. one thing that i agree in large part with what glenn said, and one thing to note this also stems from the lack of quality intelligence. just the fact that yet again we've armed and trained forces that then either turn on us or stage a coup so we have a weak government in mali so half the country was taken over by islamic extremists. why did we not see that coming? because we don't have human sources. we'll talk talk about "zero dark

thirty" in a minute, but i see this instability and our inability to keep up with it as a result that we don't have quality human sources. we have not been able to penetrate these groups, get sources and get information so we're not constantly chasing a evolving situation. >> cenk: i have a slight issue about this, and i know glenn has written about this as well. but this happens so often and it has happened for decades. we train people, they flip on us. we train people, they flip on it. it's not just short-term that we had bad information. it's a systemic problem. is the c.i.a. aware when we train these people there is a 50% chance that we'll end up fighting them later. >> well, i think it does show a remarkable and alarming shortsightedness.

as glenn pointed out it happens again and again. we saw it happened with bin laden in afghanistan. here we're seeing it happen in mali. and i do think it's a monumental problem. and you know, we kind of have this--what i would almost call a naive geopolitical outlook of my enemy's enemy is always my friend. we've seen time and again that that simply is not true. >> glenn, question for you, do you feel like this feeds into what you write about often this perpetual war that we're in. this perpetual war on terror. do you really believe federal agents are totally unaware of the fact that these people are going to flip on us? or do you think--i know this sounds conspiracial, but this has been done knowing in the fur that they possibly could flip on us and then help fuel more wars in the future? >> yeah, everything we're talking about tonight is not unknown to the u.s. government.

there are reports going back a decade that the reason there are so many people in the world who want to hate us and want to talk us we interfere with their countries, bomb their countries invade them. back up israel. we'll continue to fuel the very war that we claim we're trying to end. at some point we have to request the question if this is to justify the expansion and increase in money and power? >> cenk: stay with us, glenn and lindsay. we're going to come back and talk about "zero dark thirty" because kathryn bigelow has come out and defended the movie. we'll have glen and michael hastings respond to her response. it will be great. come right back. >> i'm not your friend. i'm not going to help you. i'm going to break you. any questions? i want the people who watch our show, to be able to come away armed with the facts, and the

arguments to feel confident in their positions. i want them to have the data and i want them to have the passion.

[ ♪ theme music ♪ ] >> cenk: all right, we're back on "the young turks" talking about the controversial around "zero dark thirty" about the torture issue. let's go to an abc news report on that controversy. >> when was the last time you saw bin laden? >> it seems like this one depicting the roles of enhanceed interrogation techniques in the hunt for osama bin laden has martin sheen and ed asner supporting the backlash against the best picture nomination of "zero dark thirty." >> i have bad news. i'm going to break. >> you bigelow is defending the torture scenes. >> it's not an easy subject but it's pretty irrefutable that that was part of the ten-year long hunt. >> cenk: all right, well kathryn bigelow wrote an op ed in the la

times and said on a practical and political level it does seem illegal to me to make a case against torture by ignoring or denying the role it played in the u.s. counter-terrorism policy. she's addressing some of her critics. we have them here on on "the young turks." michael hastings, author of the operators. lindsay moran author of blow my cover," and glenn greenwald with the guardian. so she's saying as you saw there, i had to depict what happened. what is wrong with that line of thinking. >> the defense that the filmmakers have put out is that depiction is not endorsement. that's been their defense. but that's not clearly the issue i take. the problem is depiction was grossly inaccurate. and i think--you have to go back to how this movie was made

within 19 days after the killing of bin laden the filmmakers were already meeting with the c.i.a. there are these incredible e-mails exchange that they had with public affairs officials at the c.i.a. and it happened 19 days after the assassination. clearly they were high level access and favorable treatment by the c.i.a. the e-mail said we're going to give these guys better access than anybody else, any other bin laden projects and the film shows the c.i.a. has angelic kind of characters. lastly i think if they would have depicted waterboarding and torture as we did it, and as it was pointed out as we did it would have been clinical and hospital-like city with medical technicians and a guerney.

you can't have a heroic movie that depicts it as it actually happened. >> cenk: that's interesting. glenn, you've been a critic of the movie and kathryn bigelow said, sharply on the facts and on the intelligence and doubtless that debate will continue. is that accurate, and after having watched the movie are any of your concerns allayed? >> nobody has a lower opinion of "zero dark thirty" and of kathryn bigelow than i have. i think the movie is it horrendous on every level even sin matcally it's a ridiculous film. given that i'm shocked about how transparent idiotic and absurd her defense of this film. what she said is what she has been saying everywhere she goes, as michael said, to depict torture is not to endorse it. of course we have to include it in the film since agrees it

happened. not a single person has objected to the depiction of torture in "zero dark thirty." the complaint is that the film shows torture as being a critical part of one of the events that the americans find a greatest source of pride in the finding and killing of osama bin laden. even the acting c.i.a. director the nation's best torture journalist said it was false that torture played any help in finding osama bin laden. by depicting a false torture in one of the american greatest achievement in history. >> i think osama bin laden was found due to ingenious detective work. torture was mr. employed in the

early years of the hunt. it doesn't mean it was the key but it was part of story. >> i differ from the guys. i don't blame kathryn bigelow. she's not a public servant. she's a filmmaker. i personally think she made a fantastic film. my criticism lies with the c.i.a. in that they have left "zero dark thirty" as basically the only public record that he have for the hunt in bin laden. now you have jose rodriguez, a proponent of enhanced interrogation techniques or torture saying what was portrayed in the film is not what we did if in the c.i.a. he's not there any more, a and i think it's time that the c.i.a. release everything that they gave kathryn bigelow. she gave the best film she could. we don't pay her salary. we do pay the salary at everyone who works at the c.i.a.

my feeling is that they need to set the record straight and give us all of the information that they gave to kathryn bigelow so we can make a determination if they which torture was part of what led to bin laden and so we can see how the torture was conducted. it's portrayed in the movie as if there is no oversight just a rage-filled operations officer and i know from having been an operations officer i would never want to be portrayed in that way when there is so much more to what you actually do as a collector of intelligence for the c.i.a. i don't think the responsibility lies with kathryn bigelow but with the c.i.a. at this point. >> lindsay makes a very interesting point. michael, you wrote how the depiction of the torture was a taste, but they destroyed them. >> they destroyed what it actually looked like, and then spun these filmmakers to add

these glamorous hollywood version of it. i'm going to politely disagree, as much as i'm capable of doing that with lindsay. i think these filmmakers do have a responsibility especially when they're attacking the subject to get it right. to get the biggest questions and the biggest debates in the last ten years, you have to get it right or more accurate than they did. look, sony is a corporation that is putting it out. sony doesn't care if they're profiting off inaccurate movie as long as the movie is making a continue of monday. that's their concern having an action film where people are eating popcorn. but the way they present the film as based on first-hand events as this factual documentary-like experience, you have to get the most--i thought it make a mockery of any human rights worker, any c.i.a. torturer who got it wrong and

any c.i.a. officials who stood up and said we have to put a stop to this, i think it makes a mockery of all the risks that they took to bring this to light. >> cenk: unfortunately i only have time for one last question, and glenn it will go to you. you have written how there are leaks that don't get punished, for example bob woodward the c.i.a. seems to be cooperating with the filmmakers, yet bradley manning is sitting in jail facing a possible life sentence. should those who leaked information to the filmmakers be investigated? >> yes, there have been media groups and human rights groups and even courts that have looked into whether or not more information can be obtained about what happened in the osama bin laden raid than the government has voluntarily disclosed. the government's position each and every time in the face of those efforts has been we can't tell you anything more because it's all been classified. yet at the very same time not only the c.i.a. but the white house and pentagon officials are

meeting with the filmmakers and shoveling them some type of information about the raid that they're resisting gives to give and it's a complete abuse of classified information. they should be investigated especially given that this administration is persecuteing whistle blowers for noble reason far more aggressively than any other administration in american history. >> cenk: an amazing panel michael hastings, lindsay moran glenglenn greenwald i wish i could talk with you all week. when we come back, the nra has featured us in one of their ads. a curious choice. we'll break that ad down and show you what nonsense it is. >> let's put more guns in

school. wow, you got me on that one. >> america agrees with wayne and this monday morning current tv presents special coverage of the presidential inauguration. the circumstance & the inside analysis. the presidential inauguration this monday morning at 10 eastern only on current tv. who is this? that's pete. my... [ dennis' voice ] allstate agent. a "starving artist" has an allstate agent? he got me... [ dennis' voice ] the allstate value plan. it's their most affordable car insurance and you still get an agent. [ normal voice ] i call it... [ dennis' voice ] the protector. is that what you call it? the protector! okay. ♪ ♪ the allstate value plan. are you in good hands?

>> cenk: all right, we're back on "the young turks"." cenk and ana with you. ana, apparently the nra is up and at 'em with this fighting back. i didn't see that coming. >> they're calling obama huge hypocrite because his daughters go to school with armed guards because they're the president's daughters. they released this ad, and of course they're making ridiculous claims. let's take a look. >> are the president's kids more important than yours? then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school?

mr. obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes. but he's just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security. protection for their kids and gun free zones for ours. >> cenk: hmm devastating. it turns out the president has armed guards, and so do his kids. wow, i didn't see that coming. let's bring in an expert to rebut this. eric beolert. former senior editor for salon and rolling stone. this is the short version of the ad. tell what's might be an issue here? >> well, attacking the president's kids. that very first sentence, the president's kids. they just should have stopped there and thrown it away and start over. you don't run attack ads against the first family's school-aged

children. that's insane. every was just aghast at this. if we thought wayne lapierre's press conference in december was out there and tone deaf this ad is just amazing. a month after a school massacre you're going to raise questions whether the first family's kids receive too much secret service protection? >> is this the nra's moment of desperation. they don't know where else to go to they'll ignore any good type of argument and attack the first family? >> yes when wayne lapierre had a press conference a week after the massacre, really, this is what you think about a week after a massacre? this is what you sit around thinking about? let's attack the first family's

kids for having secret service? the argument it makes no sense. it falls apart. of course the first family has secret service but this sort of ties in to the very creepy right-wing obsession that we've seen for four or five years with this complaint about how much protection the obama's get. their vacations are too expensive. tucker carlson's starting a petition saying that the secret service should stop protecting the obamas. it definitely taps into very weird issues and it's not always just about guns. >> now the squeaky wheel tend to get the most attention and thankfully cenk has been a squeaky wheel in this issue. >> the national rifle association has been getting flack for advocateing armed guards in schools. >> the brilliant idea that they

had was put more armed guards in school. >> barbara boxer say that's something she has suggested to the vice president. >> america agrees with wayne and the nra. barack obama won't have who sets of rules. armed guards for his rich friends in their elite schools restrictions in gun free schools for ours. >> the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. >> cenk: eric, did they get me? >> they did. you were one of the vast majority of people who thought-- thought--i don't know but vast majority but huge number of people who thought it was crazy. many have been saying from law enforcement groups saying we don't need armed guards in 98,000 schools let alone in every classroom. a lot of people from all across the spectrum said this is absurd

and it makes no sense. but so they're trying to say aha the elites are out of step, and the nra is right. let's talk about the other thing that the nra was freaking out about in the right-wing media and fox news. they were aghast that there were children at this ceremony today when obama made his announcement about the initiatives. these are children who wrote to the white house concerned about gun safety. rush limbaugh and fox news went crazy. they were trying to make a connection between that and the nra ad. obama was using kids to make a political point, and by the way the nra was using the obama kids. there is no equivalence of attacking the first family children and inviting children to the white house for a ceremony. it goes back to the question of desperation that you mentioned. >> thank you we appreciate it, and before we leave this, i want to make two quick notes. it's true sidwell where the

obama kids go to school, they have 11 armed schools. so do 23,000 other public schools across the country have guards. it's not elitist it depends on the policy of which direction you go in the school, and now the nra is saying that the janitors should be armed. you know, the only thing that stops a bad janitor with a gun is a good janitor with a gun. now when we come back the government targeted aaron swartz for simple violation for a term of service with a private company. he wound up committing suicide. we'll hear from a lot of folks including some well-known lawyers. >> i know this case was weighing heavily on his mind, and it was a significant source of stress. >> yes he stole information but it was not worth how much he wasasasasasasasasasasasasasasasasasasasasasasasasasasas

this monday morning current tv presents special coverage of the presidential inauguration. the circumstance & the inside analysis. the presidential inauguration this monday morning at 10 eastern only on current tv.

[ ♪ theme music ♪ ] >> cenk: all right, we're all back here. cenk ana michael, jayar. as a background to this case let's go to an abc report. >> in 2011 swartz was arrested when he broke into mit to access and download thousands of file, a notoriously expensive archive of scholarly papers. while jstor did not not press charges, mit did and it would have landed swartz in prison up to 35 years. >> almost as astonishing when we hear about the 35 years in prison and the sad sad fact

that he killed himself because of that and the people who have blood on their hands probably the government probably mit probably the prosecutors, but we hear his father at his funeral nothing more heartbreaking. he was killed by the government, and mit betrayed all of its basic principles. you know the story the government--jstor, the place-- place--the archives that was sort of pirated or freed by swartz, they said we don't want any charges. mit would no cooperate. >> jstor not only pressed charges. there was no civil charge pending against aaron. hey, let's it go. now professor are releasing those papers on their own. he was not trying to make a profit. >> mit refused to drop the case. when you think about it, all he wanted access to were scholarly

articles and journals that he found interesting. when you really think about it, the reason why a lot of these scholars have decided to release that information free to the public is a lot of these studies are funded by the u.s. government meaning tax dollars. why should we sign up for an expensive archive to get access to this research. >> let's say at the very worst he did what it is said that did he. that is not even a deal at is six months in prison and 13 felonies. when you turn that down, that is saying a lot about this guy. then they want to go after 35 years. >> they wanted to make an example out of him. he was known as part of the activist community and i think federal prosecutors wanted to make an example out of him. it's really a shame when you think about how tough this prosecution was, i mean, there is no excuse for it.

>> you bring up the federal prosecutor in this case, carmen ortiz in this case. her husband tweeted this out. truly incredible that in their own son's obit they blame others of his death and make no mention of the six-month offer. >> that does not really help. you're saying, we're prosecuting him, and the warrant for the laptop was 34 days late. it was an excellent chance the entire case was going to be dismissed. but they hounded him. he lost by some accounts his entire fortune as a co-founder of reddit based on this case, and then say were we not merciful? we were going to convict of you 13 felony counts and put you in jail for six months and you didn't take the offer and now you're blaming us. >> this is the question i like to ask all the time when something like this happens. we have the father saying things that are very heart wrenching for all of us to hear and you can put yourself in that position. but the government had something

to after him and forced him no suicide. you feel helpless. >> what could people in congress you would think they would put something together aaron's law together to make it this is not a felony. academics now are posting their own intellectual property publicly as a tribute to aaron swartz. here is mashable, this is a tweet from pete cashable, one of the great coincidences of all time that he founded mashable. they're honoring aaron swartz some academics are tweeting their articles free. that is the kind of thing what people are doing academia is doing something. and the legislature. >> cenk: so now the law says at this point if you violate your term of service which you can with any company almost everybody out there has violated some term of service with

facebook, twitter, whatever it might be. they could charge you with a felony. aaron's law would amend that saying you can't do that. it has to be actual theft, a break in. aaron had a contract with jstore. it seems he broke the contract, but you don't put somebody in jail for that. that's a reality and they should definitely pass aaron's law. we'll be right this monday morning current tv presents special coverage of the presidential inauguration. the circumstance & the inside analysis. the presidential inauguration this monday morning at 10 eastern only on current tv.